Protecting our children

I watched the BBC documentary series Protecting our Children with some very mixed feelings about the program..   Why is it even called protecting our children, surely this is the wrong message and sets social workers against parents from the get go?  Isn’t this issue more about how we raise children?

The program stirred in me some very big questions...  Where is the extended family? What friends are helping to support them? Toby is likely to spend his entire childhood in foster care - how is that really better? How does a social worker help struggling parents by giving them a 'plan?'.  What care was there for Tiffany once her children were in care?  Mike clearly has some developmental issues of his own - how was he supported?   Did Tiffany love her children - I think she did..   and if she was making progress (as seemed evident) how can it be that she then 8 months later came to a decision that giving them up was better for them - or indeed for her?  I really hope this was nothing to do with 'CLASS' or 'ECONOMICS!'...  Suzanne's admission is she 'hoped' life would be better for Toby, but what checks are in place to make sure they are? 

It is distressing that there are so many people in our nation who really struggle to care for themselves (basic care) let alone care for others..  As a society and individually don’t we need to take a good hard look at ourselves and ask why that is?    If all we do is get upset, tutt and wonder how this could happen and yet drive past people who are clearly struggling without becoming their friend and coming alongside them, supporting, loving then shame on us.   Let us be better than this.   Social workers do a very difficult job, made more difficult because the rest of us often think caring for others is someone else's job.  They can only do so much, and are limited in what they are 'allowed' to do.  I'm glad they bought him a bed, but couldn't they have ensured it was set up?  Isn’t that something though that a friend could do? Surely, it's practical help and emotional support that people need, and that is often treated with suspicion when offered by social workers because the threat is 'do what I say or lose your kid'..    those without the power to remove kids, people like you and me, need to step up to love the parents, help them learn what to do without making them a mini-project, without talking down or judging them, and without taking over.   Let's use our anger, our distress and our new-found awareness to make a real difference this year to the lives of families, not just children in difficult or dangerous situations. 

I don’t believe in Social Action

Too often social action is described as a project to meet a need.  Some projects and organisation to meet objectives are really helpful, important and necessary, but the poor and needy are not projects to be managed, they are people we are to love and be responsible for.   We cannot, we mustn’t think that because we’re involved in a socially minded project we have fulfilled our obligation to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, heal the sick.  Instead I believe a better terminology would be social responsibility.   It means being aware that our neighbours and strangers we meet have needs, and that we are responsible for meeting those needs. It is to our homes that we are to welcome the stranger, to our table the hungry to be fed, to our wardrobe that the naked are clothed, from our businesses the poor find employment.

If we are blessed with a place to rest our head, with food in our cupboards, with clothes on our back, with employment to earn a living we must not hold it only to ourselves. There is much good that can come from employment and having possessions to share, but we must not become consumed with self advancement or only benefitting our family or our friends. We must walk with eyes open to see where the needs are among our communities.  Galations 6:10 says that ‘as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people…. that doesn’t sound like a project environment to me, instead isn’t it a readiness to respond to needs as we discover them.  What then do we need to do differently to be in a responsive position?  Perhaps it might be that we purchase extra food so that we can bless our poorer neighbour (do we really need a food bank to do this? – though again they can really help) it may be that we cut the grass for all of our neighbours. Maybe we take out all the bins. Maybe that we take people shopping or offer to do laundry.  Maybe we look after people’s children so they can go to work? Maybe we help them organise their money?   Whatever the needs are around us, the peril for not responding is clear…  Ezekiel 16:49 tells us that The sin of Sodom was that they were proud, well fed and comfortable but “did not help the poor and needy”..    I hope I can become more socially responsible!

Changing roles of marriage and sex

 

The variety of ways our society adapts marriage to accommodate different outlooks and desires is as complicated as it is numerous.   I came across a diagram by Franklin Veaux that perhaps exemplifies some of the more common approaches that we might discover if we are to probe beyond the venear of ‘married’ sorts to see what lies beneath.

 Click here to open a very large version of the Map, with labels.

 

Many of the people who are involved in so called alternative lifestyles  often describe themselves as ‘spiritual’ and are therefore prime candidates for us to introduce to the ‘God they don’t yet know’. But for many, their sexual identity is as important to them as their spirituality and many of us will struggle to get beyond our feelings about their sexual lifes to see the person with spiritual needs beneath.

There are (or should be) many similarities between people who are living any sort of radical life, so we should be able to find a great deal of common ground on which to open conversations

For instance:

• Communication, Forgiveness, honesty are integral to sharing and being open.
• Community [‘belonging'] and acceptance [common ground] is shared between many people who practice similar lifestyle choices
• These relationships take a great deal of work to keep together (just like any marriage)

however, many Christians will struggle to deprogram their judgement that sex outside of marriage is wrong sufficient to enable any such dialogue to open up easily.  It is quite natural for those in these lifestyles to feel ‘different’, ‘outside’ of our expectations (the very term alternative suggests not ‘mainstream/normal/acceptable’ to many…) and the challenge to us is to know how to be loving towards these very different yet searching people.

People not projects:

I think one of the reasons we struggle is because we can’t projectise reaching these communities.  It’s hard to imagine church missionaries going into swinging clubs, disrobing and attempting to get on ‘their level’.  While we can meet prostitutes on the streets as they go about their work without being one, we can’t very well turn up at a couples home pronounce our judgement and then expect them to listen to us telling them how they should be living their lives.  So clearly designing a project to tackle the problem is NOT going to work.

But relationship evangelism, seeing a person and loving them… could that work?

If we can see people as people ‘not projects’ or ‘unsaved’ then we have an ability to love them.   What we would perhaps naturally do with our friends, we would be able to naturally do with people who are different to us.. ? As with all our neighbours, it starts with starting to talk.. Say hello. Invite them for coffee, talk about your life, talk about theirs. Don’t condemn, judge or give opinions. Listen and understand what their life is like. What makes them tick. What’s important to them. Talk about what’s important to you. Find common ground.

If someone were to come to our church meetings, we will need to be more careful.  Pastors and welcomers have a supremely important job to protect people under their care.  That care can be temporary (for the time they are in the building) or extend towards offering services (counselling, practical help) and SHOULD include keeping at bay well meaning but ungracious/unskilled people.  It will have taken amazing amounts of courage or a significant need to cajole someone so obviously different in lifestyle to walk through our doors, and the way we approach them should not be left to chance.

People who are naturally good at making friends should be introduced especially if there are things in common such as employment type, children, geographic location or history. But their remit should be specifically to grow freindship, not to counsel.

Thinking about marriage

There’s always been a bit of a furore about marriage and sex in Christian circles. I wonder is it possible that we confuse our biblical understanding of marriage, betrothal, engagement and responsibility when looking the lens of [western] legal marriage concepts and societal expectation and if so how easy is it for us to separate what we have practiced as the norm from what the bible actually says?

For a whole host of reasons, I’m not offering an answer to that question – this is after all a blog which captures some of my struggles to understand and live right and I wouldn’t want to knowingly or unknowingly [Rob Bell like] lead any reader to conclusions I don’t support - but I share below some of the questions that have challenged my assumptions/perspective…

• Hypothetically: If it could be proved that Jesus had a sexual relationship (with Mary Magdelene ) would that challenge His divinity, or our understanding of sex[ual sin]?
  • If Jesus did ‘kiss Mary on the mouth’ (as suggested in gnostic gospel of Philip), and ‘loved her more than the other disciples’ (as Philip and gospel of Mary Magdelene suggests) does that redefine what we might see as appropriate loving contact ‘prior’ to marriage [if we assume that had Jesus have been married it surely would have been recorded?]
• Might the growing trend towards co-habiting, civil partnership and alternative lifestyle choices in our communities require us to redefine how we speak about marriage so that we are clear about what we communicate is God’s plan? If indeed God has but one blueprint for the way in which each of us should live.
• In cultures where plural marriage is permitted by law would we define God’s understanding of marriage differently? (Does God actually care how many wives/husbands we have (or had?). Is it important that the Trinity is 3 not 2 persons? Do we speak of responsibility to wives rather than singular wife? Do we promote divorce as a method of ‘making right’ something which is ‘wrong’?)
• In cultures where there is no marriage ceremony but where there is an understanding of ‘belonging’ would we define sexual activity within that relationship to be sinful?  If not, how do we respond to co-habiting couples in the West? – ie what exactly are we communicating is biblically sinful? (sex without legal contract? sex without clarity of exclusivity?)
• Is it right to conclude that faithfulness is not about how many wives or concubines a husband might have, but how you care for them? 
  • Is marriage then more about faithful responsibility (provision and offspring) not sexual monogamy?
  • What then is the biblical definition of adultery? Since if one even looks with the eye at another he has committed adultery in his heart (even before a sexual act has taken place!)
• Paul seems to suggest [1 Corinthians 7:32-33] remaining single is preferable to marriage, and that marriage is reserved for ‘if you can’t control yourself’… [1 Cor 7:36] So is God for marriage or against it?
  • For elders and deacons is it essential they are married?…
  • or if they ‘are’ married essential for them to only be married to one woman (presumably at once)?  
  • What then do we make of ‘it is not good for man to be alone?’
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of men available to sire children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, wives and sex subtly change?
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of women available to bear children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, husbands and sex be different than if men were in short supply?

 

What I’m pretty certain of is:

• Marriage is a good thing for lots of reasons. Some biblical, some practical. some personal
• Taking responsibility for each other is serious and important.
• Providing stable environments for child rearing is essential.
• Loving relationship (as an antidote to brokenness) is always on God’s heart.
• How we speak about how people live demonstrates to them what the kingdom of God is like.
• I don’t think Song of Song’s is primarily about God and us,  nor am I certain (from the text) that the sexual activity was exclusively post marriage. [but then I voted for the Alternative Vote so what do I know :) ] .

You may find some answers to the questions above in some of these links: (* determine for yourself their validity to speak on the subject) better still do your own research / ask your elder..

• http://www.bethinking.org/right-wrong/whats-wrong-with-sex-before-marriage.htm
• http://www.gracecentered.com/biblical_view_of_adultery.htm
• http://www.thelivingwordtbc.com/1cor23.htm
• http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/07/is-john-piper-okay-with-polygamy/

Contesting the incontestable: No2AV/Yes2AV debate

 

It is undeniable that the Alternative Vote (AV) system produces a result that is different from first past the post (FPTP) in constituencies where there isn’t a clear favourite among that electorate.   That AV doesn’t favour (nationally) either of the main parties (as FPTP does) is to its credit because it levels the playing field on which parties with broad support can compete.

• Voting to keep FPTP (because you don’t like AV or you would prefer Proportional Representation (PR) is saying to the government that you are not interested in electoral reform and support the current demonstrably unfair system
• FPTP is unfair in a race with more than 2 candidates, because in nearly every election, the winning candidate will only gain the support of around a 1/3rd of the electorate that bothered to turn out. In FPTP a candidate wins with a minority. 

 

According to the Telegraph.. Twenty MPs from the new intake – ten Labour and ten Conservative – have listed ten incontestable objections to the Alternative Vote system.  (Telegraph points in Italics, my response in normal case)

1. AV IS OBSCURE: Only three countries in the world use AV for their national elections: Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea
1. It is correct to say that AV is only in use for national elections by three countries, but even in the UK there are many different forms of alternative voting that take place for different ballots.  In that regard AV is not obscure, but actually favoured for some elections including the election of the conservative leader!
2. The banality of this argument is obvious though… and one of principle, like saying that we shouldn’t have an NHS because other countries don’t.
   
2. AV IS UNFAIR: Supporters of fringe parties can end up having their vote counted five or six times – and potentially decide the outcome of the election – while people who backed the mainstream candidates only get one vote.
1. Alternative votes only come into play if there isn’t a candidate that passes 50% of the turnout in the constituency AND because their first preference is eliminated.
2. I understand that there will be a threshold in which the votes for fringe parties will be reallocated in the event that none of the candidates reaches that 50% in the first place.
3. This position assumes that those who might vote green or UKIP or even BNP would choose to show a preference for any other party than their own… or at least another one that might raise enough support across the constituency…  In the case of extremist politics, I think that’s highly unlikely.
4. In reality everyone’s vote in AV is counted the same amount of times in the constituency until there is a clear winner. What changes is the allocation of the vote preference. (your principle vote for a labour candidate or a conservative one will most likely be counted in every round against your first choice candidate)
5. In relation to the existing system, FPTP national elections are decided by a small number of marginal constituencies. All this proves is that with each proposed system there is some level of unfairness to some, the question is, is AV more fair than what we have now or less?
   
3. AV IS UNEQUAL: AV treats someone’s fifth or sixth choice as having the same importance as someone’s else’s first preference – but there is a big difference between positively wanting one candidate to win and being able to ‘put up with’ another.
1. No, AV treats someone’s second or third choice with a similar importance in the event that no clear winner is determined.
2. The truth is under AV EVERY voter has an equal chance of influencing the result. – This cannot be said about FPTP.
3. In FPTP, everyone who tactically votes is likely to be voting for who there 2^nd ,3^rd , 4^th etc choice.
   
4. AV IS ‘EVEN LESS PROPORTIONAL’ THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM: So concluded the independent Royal Commission chaired by the senior Liberal Democrat Roy Jenkins in 1998.
1. Though the Jenkins report suggested that AV could produce IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES even less proportional results than the current system, the recommendation was that the best system for Britain was AV+ where 80-85% of constituency members would be elected ordinarily through AV whilst the remaining 15-20% would be elected on a corrective top-up basis. But regardless, the general point is moot because neither AV nor FPTP claim to be proportional.
2. AV isn’t proportional representation, nor does it claim to be.  It is simply a method of enabling more people’s vote to be ‘FOR’ a candidate or candidates, reducing the amount of wasted votes and enabling more people to be engaged with politics, and the result.
3. The reality is that the result will reflect the choices people actually make.  In recent history the most likely outcome is more seats for Liberal Democrats. (if you consider the actual share of the vote nationally)
   
5. AV IS ‘DISTURBINGLY UNPREDICTABLE’ – another warning from Roy Jenkins. Elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party.
1. This is nonsense.  With FPTP with more than 2 parties and electoral constituencies with massaged boundaries the only predictable thing about FPTP is that the result won’t reflect the will of the majority of the UK.
2. The reality is that democracy, when allowed to be truly democratic, is unpredictable. I think that is a good thing, because it will return politics to issues.
   
6. AV IS NOT WANTED – EVEN BY THE YES CAMPAIGN: Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as “a miserable little compromise” and the Electoral Reform Society said they did “not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament”.
1. What is not wanted is AV to be the system that endures, but nearly all see AV as a stepping stone towards PR.   The likelihood is that if we don’t vote against FPTP by voting for AV, you will not get another chance to change the electoral system in the UK.
2. If AV is not wanted, then that is what the outcome of the referendum should decide.  But I want it (over FPTP) and so do lots of others. So the general statement is not only incorrect, it is also premature.
   
7. AV IS NO-ONE’S FIRST CHOICE: AV was not in the manifestos of either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. Many people who want voting reform have spent years campaigning for proportional representation – which AV is not.
1. The Liberals would prefer PR to be on the ballot paper. It isn’t.  Given that the only options are FPTP and AV, AV is the first choice.
2. NO ONE voted for the coalition manifesto. That doesn’t mean the same as No one wants electoral reform 
3. The referendum is on which is BETTER, not which one is perfect.  I can’t see that FPTP is better than AV.. though I can certainly see faults with both.
   
8. AV IS COMPLEX: The Government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters how AV works to prevent a fall in turnout at elections. In Australia, the only reason they have high turnout is because they made voting compulsory.
1. This is a nonsense too.  In Australia after AV was introduced the turnout rose.. This was BEFORE they introduced compulsory voting.
2. Anyone who can count to three can vote in AV. It takes no explaining.  Rank your preference 1^st choice, 2^nd, 3^rd.
3. I agree that voting should be compulsory (even if people only spoil their paper)  but with turnout being voluntary no-one really knows if it will increase or decrease.. wouldn’t it be interesting to try?
4. My own view is that anything that rewards peoples action to vote is likely to encourage voting.
   
9. AV IS EXPENSIVE: Under AV we won’t be able to count ballot papers by hand on election night if we want a quick, decisive election result. Local councils will have to purchase electronic counting machines that are very expensive and prone to malfunction.
1. This has already been refuted.  Manual counting is not just possible, but possible in similar time. 
2. Where there is a clear winner, the count will be exactly the same
3. In the event of reallocation of votes, the second and third rounds will take much less time because only some votes are being reallocated.
4. The benefit of electronic means of recording or counting the vote is a separate issue to be addressed whichever system of voting is used.
   
10. AV IS NOT THE REFORM WE NEED: There are lots of genuine reforms which would go some way to restoring people’s trust in politics – but changing our voting system to AV is not one of them. That’s why it’s a shame that we’re about to spend £90 million and five months debating a system that nobody really wants.
1. I agree that other reforms are needed. But that doesn’t mean this one isn’t needed, and this is the one before us on May 5^th.
2. Do you think it is likely that the Government will offer further reforms if we don’t turn out to vote?

How can we be culturally relevant?

I have been thinking a lot about the expressions of Christianity that seek explicitly to be culturally relevant to the people around us, but I am uneasy about how some describe how they have adapted themselves to become culturally relevant, and here’s why.

We’re supposed to be different. 

• Matthew 5 says we are salt and light. That means we shine light on situations and leave our saltiness wherever we go. 

We’re supposed to be loving, not selfish.

• The culture I see around me relates more to what can I get, rather than what can I give.  If we emulate that, how are we different?

We’re supposed to stand for righteousness, not abandon it

• If our contemporaries and neighbours are pursuing hedonistic activities, don’t we need to redeem them not join them?

We’re supposed to be instantly recognisable

• I have some sympathy with the ‘dress like those you want to reach’  and ‘use lingo your hearer will understand’ argument, but no-one will look more ‘out of place’ than me wearing a pair of Nike’s and a hoodie and talking slang. I’m not afraid of doing odd things or feeling uncomfortable, but surely better to be ‘myself’, genuine, passionate, interested and loving than attempt to pass myself off as ‘one of them’?  Doesn’t it look too ‘try hard’ to attempt to emulate them?

 

My Wonderings:

All things to all men

• So what on earth do I do with Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 9??
• To reach the Jews he became like the Jew. – Does that mean to reach a muslim I need to be like them? live like they do, act like they do?
• To reach those under the law, he became like one under the law – Do I need to keep ceremonial activities? be ‘religious’ to the point of bondage?
• To those not having the law, he became like one not having he law – Did he become lawless other than Christ’s law?  Did he break the law of the land to uphold the higher law of Christ?
• To the weak he became weak.  Did he starve his body? Did he not use his intellect? Did he speak differently?
• I think this is more about going where they go, doing what they do (to an extent) to show openness to understanding their life.

 

Isn’t it about relationship?

My grandparents were culturally relevant to me, not because they dressed like me, drove like me, used technology or spoke like me (other than mother tongue) no, it was mainly because I was important to them and they were important to me. We were connected relationally. They loved me because they chose to, and I spent time with them because I loved them… I wonder then isn’t that how to be culturally relevant?  Finding things in people who are different to you that are similar enough that you can connect with them?   Isn’t that how we show them we love them?

When we need people, don’t they feel good?  We can love endlessly, but if we don’t actually care about the needs of the people we are loving, if we don’t need their love and care and interest in return, then it’s NOT a relationship, its a project or a work.  It always bugs me when I see people in caring professions talk intimately to their other colleagues over the person in their care.  It always makes me feel desperately sorry for the ignored PERSON that is right there.  I understand that it’s easier to talk to those you have relationships with, but that’s exactly my point… if we build relationships with people, not just ‘ministries’, aren’t we then able to meet that other side of wanting in us (and them) to be needed?  I wonder how much easier it is to minister to someone’s lack of self worth when they see that we need them?  How much more loved someone feels when we seek out their friendship to support us?  How much more part of the kingdom of God they feel when we include them in shaping our plans and dreams?

So what Culture is important?

I don’t yet know then whether the extremes of inexclusivity of some of the emergent folks or the ultra tolerance and inclusiveness of the Shane Clairbourne’s of this world demonstrate is something I can identify with, though there’s a massive way to go from where I am today towards their world/kingdom view that I’m somewhat embarrassed by the faltering steps I’ve taken so far… But I’m reasonably certain that our task is to bring the culture of heaven, the kingdom of heaven down to man.  I don’t think this means counting people who have not chosen Christ as ‘included in His book of life’, but it does mean expressing Christ’s love to them, loving them with my heart and actions, because their life depends on it.

If you have thoughts or comments about this, PLEASE COMMENT, because I’m thinking this through.  If you’re going to be at the everything conference tomorrow and you bump into me, say hi and tell me what you think BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW.